640, 647 (1961) (judge had the discretion to permit witnesses to use the words “boisterous” and “in an arrogant manner” in describing the actions of a person they observed). “The rule that witnesses in describing conduct should tell what they saw and heard does not foreclose the use of words of summary description.” Kane v. 851, 865, 869–872 (2021) (“no impermissible blurring of lines” between detective’s testimony as expert and as percipient witness where detective’s expert testimony “essentially was confined to explaining technical terms” and “was given in an effort to aid the jury’s understanding of terms used in the sex trade,” and where judge properly instructed jury on difference). Where the same witness gives both lay and expert testimony, the better practice is for the trial judge to instruct the jury about the difference. “While an expert opinion is admissible only where it will help jurors interpret evidence that lies outside of common experience, a lay opinion is admissible only where it lies within the realm of common experience” (quotation omitted). This section, which is taken nearly verbatim from Fed. (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Section 702. (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’s testimony or in determining a fact in issue and (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |